Autoblog: "The [F10] M5 is an impressive four-door supercar with the 7DCT, but the 6MT erases much of its fire."

Simply put, BMW's F10 M5 was designed with the 7DCT in mind. The automated gearbox is capable of ripping up and down through the gears endlessly before taking the Autobahn home at a sustained 190 mph. In sharp contrast, and whether North American enthusiasts want to admit it or not, the M5's 6MT is a Frankensteinian adaptation to the platform incapable of handling the same stress as its dual-clutch sibling – that's a fact.

Our street drive revealed more about the 6MT than we were able to ascertain on the racing circuit (it is impossible to notice subtle qualities while driving at nine-tenths, with a helmet over our head, playfully chasing other M5s). We noticed that the M5 manual gearbox rev-matches on downshift when in certain modes (just like a Nissan 370Z). It works well, and the feature likely adds life to the clutch plate itself. We also noticed how much heavier and more massive the high-performance sedan felt when we were tasked with shifting. Lastly, our tooling around the Monterey Peninsula exposed the gearing as being a bit too tall for America's low speed limits.

It isn't easy to build a manual gearbox for a daily driver sport sedan strong enough to handle 500 pound-feet of torque (that kind of insane twisting force used to be reserved for race cars) and make it last 50,000-plus miles. We expected a heavy clutch, but the hydraulically assisted pedal felt unsubstantial and springy. Sadly, those qualities made engagement feel unnatural. The gear selector is well placed, but its movement was typical BMW – a bit notchy and not entirely precise. On one positive note, the light clutch made departing from a standstill easy and shifting while on-the-fly was effortless. Yet overall, something was missing. It was our smile – the 6MT wasn't very entertaining.

We were honestly a bit deflated by our BMW experience. The M5 is an impressive four-door supercar with the 7DCT, but the 6MT erases much of its fire. The manual gearbox delivers slower acceleration, reduced fuel economy (despite what the EPA prints) and, while we might be willing to give in on the numbers a little for an enhanced connection between car and driver, our time with the manual suggests its characteristics will frustrate more drivers than it will satisfy. While our enthusiast-rich blood craves involvement, in this particular situation, it became painfully clear that the computer-controlled 7DCT is the M5's better transmission.

We also noticed how much heavier and more massive the high-performance sedan felt when we were tasked with shifting.

Maybe it's just me. But I would rather be aware of the proportions of the car before entering a turn at high speed than to be disillusioned by computers making me think that I'm driving a hyper Miata until I overseer and fly off the road.

That said, bad transmission is bad... Figures. Manual gearboxes can be as different as their automated dual-clutch counterparts. Just because it's manual, doesn't mean it's good. BMW failed with this one. Noted.

BMW would have to royally screw up the manual in the new M5 for me not to opt for it. A lot of what was written was purely subjective. What they found as a ding or unsatisfactory, I might not even notice.

BMW would have to royally screw up the manual in the new M5 for me not to opt for it. A lot of what was written was purely subjective. What they found as a ding or unsatisfactory, I might not even notice.

And likely your "manual at any cost" bias may make you ignore real failings in the transmission.

There are good an bad manuals just like there are good and bad autoboxes. I prefer a good manual, unless the automatic is simply a better fit. But I'm willing to give the autobox a shot, unlike some people who have closed themselves off to the option.

I love cars, but the problem is they are like schroedinger's hobby. They're always in a quantum superstate of being both awesome and a huge waste of time and money... until observation momentarily forces them into one state or another.

I figured this was going to happen. Honestly I don't understand the appeal of a manual in cars this big and heavy. I didn't even think twice in getting an auto for my current car. Small, fun cars are the only ones that I want to drive with a MT.

Originally Posted by Doug Butabi

And on the tenth day of the two thousand fifteenth year, TCL finds out about rich people.

And likely your "manual at any cost" bias may make you ignore real failings in the transmission.

There are good an bad manuals just like there are good and bad autoboxes. I prefer a good manual, unless the automatic is simply a better fit. But I'm willing to give the autobox a shot, unlike some people who have closed themselves off to the option.

Anything that makes a pig of a car like a 5 series seem a little lighter and more maneuverable is fine with me. In a car that size, I really dont care about what transmission is there. Honestly, I hardly care about the transmission period. I chose the manual in my Focus because the auto is such a PITA. I wouldve preferred the auto for easy around town commuting.

The entire point behind a manual transmission is to become involved in the dirving experience and to have full control over the way the vehicle shifts and delivers power. All of the bell and whistle electronics and fancy auto-manual gearboxes are fine but they take away from the overall dirving experience.

It's kind of like comparing WW2 fighter planes to the modern aircraft controlled by flight computers and "fly by wire". Yes, the more modern aircraft is more capable in terms of turning, accel, etc but there is less machine/human interaction which is what helps make a fighter pilot a better killer. Computers can only do so much.....

The entire point behind a manual transmission is to become involved in the dirving experience and to have full control over the way the vehicle shifts and delivers power. All of the bell and whistle electronics and fancy auto-manual gearboxes are fine but they take away from the overall dirving experience.

But...the 6MT in the M5 seems to ruin the driving experience. So what's the sense in opting for it if that's your concern?

At the risk of sounding like an eliteist, when you read the article, the points they make are slightly rediculous.

The 6MT is the flip side of the coin. Instead of just piloting the M5 around Laguna Seca's famed circuit, we were very involved as all four of our limbs were tasked with an individual role. The 6MT required us to become an integral part of the car – both microprocessor and hydraulic actuator – and our attention had to be diverted from the apex and exit markers to get the shifts just right. We were plenty quick in the 6MT (thankfully, gobs of torque allowed the M5 to run most of the track in third gear), but we lost precious time on a few shifts and had to really concentrate on nailing the downshift into second gear at Turn 11. It was also much more nerve racking flying one-handed through Turn One at 100-plus mph.

That sounds much more fun to me than just steering a car around a track.

I think the reason that we're car enthusiasts is that we like to have the challenge of getting better at doing the action of driving. What fun is it if you're instantly good at doing an activity? You haven't earned it!

All of the bell and whistle electronics and fancy auto-manual gearboxes are fine but they take away from the overall dirving experience.

Not at all. IME w/the 7-speed DCT, it wildly enhances the driving experience. Just because your left foot isn't doing as much work doesn't mean there are fewer thrills to be had. The way the car accelerates w/the DCT is just insane.

In contrast, everyone I know who's driven a newer M-car in 6MT has been disappointed.

It's kind of like comparing WW2 fighter planes to the modern aircraft controlled by flight computers and "fly by wire". Yes, the more modern aircraft is more capable in terms of turning, accel, etc but there is less machine/human interaction which is what helps make a fighter pilot a better killer. Computers can only do so much.....

Ummm because maybe, just maybe, you may not notice the deficiencies pointed out in the article. Most of their complaints are subjective and certainly not gospel. I've driven enough cars with manual transmissions to know what bothers me and what doesn't. Their complaints seem far more nit-picky than anything else. If I was spending $100k on a new car, I can tell you that the impressions of a magazine definitely wouldn't make up my mind for me. I don't do it now when I'm spending a third of that amount!

That sounds much more fun to me than just steering a car around a track.

I think the reason that we're car enthusiasts is that we like to have the challenge of getting better at doing the action of driving. What fun is it if you're instantly good at doing an activity? You haven't earned it!

As someone above me said...this is the experience one should pursue in smaller, lower-powered cars.

In cars in the M5's performance league, the consequences of a missed shift present far more potential for catastrophe than in an FR-S or S2000 or Cayman. Having the 6MT becomes a huge liability, which is a distraction from the high-performance driving experience.

Bashing the dual-clutch trannies makes about as much sense to me as bashing the limited-slip differential.

Shifting in a 4500 pound just doesn't match the personality of the car or its mission IMO. You buy an M5 because its a fast, dual personality tech wizard. Its in the group of cars that shouldn't be nearly as fast as they but can crush roads with pure computing power.

It's not a small, light sportscar that needs to have all of the power rung out of it to move. Nor is it a race ready sportscar.

This isn't the first time BMW has put a clunker of an M/T in the M5. These same types of complaints came up with the E60 M5's M/T with the ratios and clutch/shifter feel. If they aren't going to do it the right way then they shouldn't do it at all. I don't think that means some kind of blanket statement should be made like "M/T's have no place in (big) sedans" simply because BMW has adapted it poorly to their M5.

Originally Posted by Mazda 3s

Hush! You'll wakeup the "It makes me feel like I am 'one' with the machine" dweebs

I can understand in something like an FR-S, but in a 4,400 lb sedan?

I might be one of the few with this line of thinking but, the M5 wasn't always merely just about being the sedan with the most outstanding performance. One of the key aspects that differentiated it from the rest of the pack was its driver focused experience correlating primarily to the handling. The wrap around cockpit, the direct and positive controls, having the involvement of a manual when most of the other hot sedans only offered A/Ts. I feel that the M5 was as much a driver's car as it was BMW's statement of what a super fast sedan could be.

Shifting in a 4500 pound just doesn't match the personality of the car or its mission IMO. You buy an M5 because its a fast, dual personality tech wizard. Its in the group of cars that shouldn't be nearly as fast as they but can crush roads with pure computing power.

It's not a small, light sportscar that needs to have all of the power rung out of it to move. Nor is it a race ready sportscar.

Again, I'd rather drive a manual transmission simply because it gives me the feeling of being connected to the vehicle. I can control what gear it needs to be in. I control what gear and how much traction to give the rear tires in the winter. It's a simple system that works.

I understand the technology and how great it can be but it somehow insulates you from the mechanical enjoyment of the car. I don't car about ripping around a race track 2/10's of a second faster due to a fancy auto gearbox and computers....I want to be able to rev-match when I want to, not when the computer decides it's best.

I don't see how weight and size are being correlated now to how necessary a manual is in a high performance car. The ZL1, and many of today's larger GT's are heading for that 4,000lbs+ weight figure, should they not offer M/T's for those as well now?

The point should be here that if it's done, it should be done correctly. And that goes for more than just something like the transmission.

I don't see how weight and size are being correlated now to how necessary a manual is in a high performance car. The ZL1, and many of today's larger GT's are heading for that 4,000lbs+ weight figure, should they not offer M/T's for those as well now?

The point should be here that if it's done, it should be done correctly. And that goes for more than just something like the transmission.

I think weight and mission does have something to do with it. The M5 and ZL1 don't really share the same space though. The ZL1 was made to be a track ready 4-seat coupe. A manual works in that case.

The super sportsedan class i(ie XFR, CTS-V, E63, M5, S6, etc.) just doesn't fit with manuals anymore IMO. I wouldn't want a manual in any of them

I don't see how weight and size are being correlated now to how necessary a manual is in a high performance car. The ZL1, and many of today's larger GT's are heading for that 4,000lbs+ weight figure, should they not offer M/T's for those as well now?

The point should be here that if it's done, it should be done correctly. And that goes for more than just something like the transmission.

It's not simply weight and size, but also the purpose of the vehicle and the experience it is intended to provide.

I think weight and mission does have something to do with it. The M5 and ZL1 don't really share the same space though. The ZL1 was made to be a track ready 4-seat coupe. A manual works in that case.

The super sportsedan class i(ie XFR, CTS-V, E63, M5, S6, etc.) just doesn't fit with manuals anymore IMO. I wouldn't want a manual in any of them

Originally Posted by Ross1013

It's not simply weight and size, but also the purpose of the vehicle and the experience it is intended to provide.

JustinCSVT is right-on here. And he has the experience to back it up.

As I said in an earlier post, while I do think the M5's point is to be somewhat a product of its numbers to me what set it apart from the rest of the cars in that segment was the fact that it was usually the best car to drive, the most involving, and decidedly a driver's car. In that respect, it's not surprising that BMW would continue offering this transmission or companies like Cadillac would still go as far as marketing the added involvement of an M/T for their CTS-V.

If there was no market or if no one wanted them, they wouldn't offer them.